I focus almost exclusively on PvP, whether solo, small gang, or large bloc warfare. In the past, I've been a miner, mission runner, and faction warfare jockey. I'm particularly interested in helping high-sec players get into 0.0 combat.

Thursday, May 28, 2015

Every blog post, every comment, and every hour spent reading and
writing about Eve is dedicated to the pursuit of an idea, of a single moment
when all that fodder caramelizes into a breathtaking insight. It’s a slow process, but when it finally
appears, the absolute satisfaction and delight of a true paradigm shift strikes
you like a thunderbolt of awareness. At
no point do you feel more aware that all is perception and representation as
you do in that moment.

For several weeks, I’ve posted about “what Eve is”. I argued that CCP wants – and the gameworld needs – players who are highly engaged and passionate about
what happens in-game, that we needed people who argue. I’ve argued that players who do solo PvE aren’t
as desirable to the game as players who interact with lots of people. I’ve argued that direct player interactions
are preferable to indirect or non-interactive actions. I’ve posited the belief that while all
activities are intensely satisfying to someone, we need to keep a hierarchy of value
in our minds based on whether those activities create content for others,
improve the vibrancy of the gameworld, and retain players long-term. I’ve
still said that Eve is a complex game and should use every tool at its disposal to gain
that initial player interest, then quickly draw them into other areas to guard
against boredom. I’ve argued that the passionate
player-created content is Eve’s major competitive advantage, and that CCP should
not try to complete based on its poor PvE offerings (which is a losing
long-term prospect in even the best cases; look at WoW’s subscription yo-yo).

Through it all, I’ve been sniffing around a larger point I couldn’t
quite articulate. I’ve been intentionally provocative with the deliberate goal of triggering discussion that could lead to that
thunderbolt. Other bloggers have chimed
in, both in favor of and against things I’ve written. Other commenters have argued with me. Some made good points, and some expressed
their own biases and the flaws in their thinking. And all of it paid off.

A paradigm shift is a radical, yet sometimes subtle, change in the way one
views the world that has massive ramifications.
I’ve said before that we create our own perceptions of the world. This can lead to a lot of doubt and confusion
when we reject an idea of absolute truth, but it can also lead to delight and
awe when we replace an old world-view with a new, better one. For me, that happened last night at about
11:45 pm.

You see, Eve certainly isn’t a PvE game, but nor is it a PvP game. It’s a PeP game: Players Engaging Players.

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

I’ve covered my thoughts on the FozzieSov changes in a few recent
posts. Overall, I’m very pleased with
the direction CCP is taking the game. The
mechanic changes suggest a heavy emphasis on coordinated combat among small
fleets, rather than blob warfare, as well as a fusion of PvE and PvP components,
which should help draw people into the PvP game a bit more.

But let’s say you’re a small alliance looking to cash in on FozzieSov
mechanics to re/claim a bit of space for yourself. The best space in the game will go to
established entities. The second-best – areas near Empire on travel routes –
will likely go to well-oiled pirate groups and PvP-centered entities. So that leaves small alliances with the worst
of the null-sec space. Your logistics
will be a nightmare involving multiple jumps, you’ll be prone to constant
disruption (meaning your primary game activity will have to be cultivating your
space) and your systems will have a minimum of the really lucrative sigs, anoms,
moons, and belts.

Put simply, a lot of null-sec may not be worth the hassle of holding it. What should CCP do to make it “worth it” for
alliances to own and defend their sov from the significant threats FozzieSov will
impose.

I’m going to limit my personal comments to, “That’s a great idea,” at a
maximum, and turn this one over to you folks entirely. Please share your suggestions for specific new/changed
mechanics/features.

Please note: If you reach this page from another source (EN24, reddit, Eve forums), by all means post there, but consider duplicating your comments here as well so everyone can read your ideas.

Monday, May 25, 2015

As a student of history, I’ve often heard the phrase, “The Wheel of
Fortune turns.” Fortune is cyclical,
like a wheel rolling along the ground.
We ride the wheel to its peak, then are carried back down to the ground
again. Nowhere is this truer than in
Eve.

Bad thinking compounds loss after loss, making you feel awful at this
game. The next moment, you start a
string of successful kills and unlikely escapes. Recently, I’ve been having a very good run; I
haven’t suffered any losses for quite a while and have even avoided hot drops
and gate camps. But as they say in
hockey, “You’re never playing as well or as badly as you think you are.” My luck will turn again.

The trick with fortune is to make decisions only when you’re on the way
up or on the way down. Changing course
at the bottom can cause you to replace good habits with bad, and changing at
the top can cause you to over-step your skill and abilities, to ruinous
financial effect.

But if there is such a thing as the “Wheel of Boredom”, it’s a whole
different kettle of fish.

Friday, May 22, 2015

In my last post, I’ve spoken about a hierarchy of interactions, arguing
for an Eve worldview that places direct player interactions at the top. That’s an
intentionally provocative stance, and as a direct result, it decreases the
priority on other interactions.

After all, while certain marketing campaigns or simplified business
objectives may require CCP to single out a highest priority, these concepts
don’t generally make it out of the C-suite.
But identifying what matters “most” is a great way to understand
ourselves, our priorities, and our objectives.
The harder the question is, the more insightful the answer.

But they certainly don’t encapsulate how players actually engage with
Eve Online. So now I’d like to support
what may appear to be a contrary position, but one that deserves attention too.

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

As humans,
we naturally divide the world by dichotomies.Good and evil.Right and
wrong.Left and right.True and false.More often than not, these end up being
laughably simplistic and utterly wrong, but we keep doing it anyways.

These
generalities allow us to make conclusions about the world… there’s simply too
much information to assess each piece independently. Dichotomies are shortcuts. And they allow us to cast ourselves in the
mold of The Standard… the measure by which the world is gauged. Is this person more or less moral than me?
We position ourselves at the center of the universe. And that kind of makes sense… no one else’s
perspective and experience matters as much to us as our own does; we’re stuck
with it… it had better.

So,
naturally, we always cast ourselves in the role of The Hero. We are righteous. We are just.
Our actions are the norm by which everyone else should seek to
emulate. Pair that tendency with the
deceptive believe in universal truths (for instance, morality, justice, etc.),
and you get a dangerous combination.

But this
isn’t an article about The Hero. This is
an article about the importance of The Villain, and specifically the essential
role villains play in Eve.

Saturday, May 16, 2015

The topic of “player interactions” comes up quite a bit on this blog
and in the game as whole. Most people
agree that Eve is about fostering player interactions, but no one – myself
included – takes the time to sit down and define the term we throw about so
often. The definition we use is all the more important following Fozzie's comment that CCP wants to "put players in contact with each other," in the devblog announcing the revised changes to null-sec sovereignty.

But before we can do that, we need to understand the necessary
components of a good definition. The
purpose of a definition is to bundle up a set of ideas into a single “thing”
that people can easily conceive of and apply in future thinking. The definition of a “meeting”, for instance,
is necessary because it sets certain expectations about how the “thing” you’re
about to attend is supposed to go, and sets some baselines for the standards of
behavior. Specific instances have
different applications of the expectations incorporated within the definition
“meeting”, but the essential nature of it is the same.

So, definitions have to be vague enough to account for some variation
in specific instances. But they cannot
be so vague that they cease to have meaning.
This is particularly noticeable in the trend over the past fifty
years. In the desire to be inclusive of
all things, words are becoming less precise.
Consider the fact that people will make many claims about what
“freedom”, “right”, and “truth” mean, to the point that it seems they can mean
anything. This is intentional, and its
purpose is to undercut the value of those terms in argument. Yet, the fact that most of us can feel a
sense of awkwardness when people invoke one of those terms for something that
we know, in our hearts, it clearly does not mean.

So, definitions cannot be inclusive of every fringe case, but they must
not be so precise that they provide no value to us on a daily basis.

That said, what is the definition of a “player interaction” in Eve? (Ed. Note: tl;dr at the bottom.)

Thursday, May 14, 2015

I’m typically not a numbers guy, but while numbers don’t tell the whole
story, they can serve as a valuable indicator of how we’re doing. I want to take a minute from regular articles
(three of which I should have for you shortly) to call out a milestone I've passed today.

200 posts, 673 comments, 1.9 million views. I feel I’ve come by them honestly. In all but a handful, I’ve kept my focus on
ensuring that my readers take something of value away from them.

This blog has become more satisfying to me than I could have ever
imagined. And I’m realistic enough to
understand that the reason has only a part to do with myself. A lot of the time, I
share my experiences, or my opinions about things happening in the game world. And both of those are at least equally
influenced by others. Without combatants
fighting me, I can’t write about the lessons I learn. Without CCP and players developing and
adapting the gameworld, I can’t write about the effects I foresee and observe.

But, most importantly, without you, Target Caller has no value. Your comments and arguments keep me sharp,
honest, and engaged with writing. They
provide the passion that fills the pages.
Agree or disagree, I’m thankful for the time you spend each day reading
and commenting.

So I wanted to take a moment to share that milestone. It’s a milestone that belongs to everyone who
ever posted a comment here, on reddit threads, or on EN24 posts. I read them all, and I appreciate them all.

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

One of my favorite Eve-related images is the “Two Kinds of Eve Players”
picture that adorned the Rote Kapelle killboard of the two kids playing on the
beach – one building a sandcastle and one inbound with a shovel to smash it
apart. It captures the two spirits that
sit in balance in Eve: creation and destruction. In Eve, it’s undeniable that players are able
to engage in whichever kind of wish fulfillment they desire; do you have a
repressed urge to create without the RL means, or do you
want to destroy, either as catharsis or to find a purity in combat? In Eve, you get to decide.

But there’s another dichotomy that seems particularly appropriate: data
and lore. Some players live for “spreadsheets
in space” and quantify everything – profit per hour; optimal tactics for
specific goals; perfect fits based on dps, tank, tracking, cap usage; value of
their time, and “win” conditions. The
others, well they thrive on narrative, the experience, emotional satisfaction,
and the dopamine rush of an engaging moment.
Put another way, you have people who love the data of Eve, and others
who love the lore of Eve.

Saturday, May 9, 2015

Yes, this is going to be a smug post. I tend to use a lot of words to try to make
myself clear. I I’ve been pretty harsh
on players who engage in aspects of the game in ways that actively,
passionately, and exclusively eliminate the possibilities of interacting with
other players in non-consensual ways.
The whole warp core stabilizer thing is just one example.

In other words, all the people who want to play the game
without interacting with other players.

I’ve said before that Eve is an MMO and solo play is
contrary to the purpose of an MMO. Now,
not every element of gameplay MUST be multiplayer, and players aren’t wrong for
engaging in solo activities. Rather, I’m
referring to an error of intention, not action.
You’re playing Eve wrong if you log in with the explicit, overt desire to
not interact with anyone and you view other players as ruining your game.

Folks have complained that this attitude is exclusionary. Not at all. My goal is to condition players towards
enjoying emergent, sandbox activity. To
view player interactions as challenges, not ruinations. To accept player-induced losses as the cost
of doing business, not as a reason to rage.
To view interactions with other players as challenges that serve to help
you grow, improve, and become educated, not as interruptions or distractions.

This approach to the game makes players less inclined to
rage-quit when they suffer a setback and more inclined to become more
passionately engaged with the game.
CCP’s data on player retention confirms this. My goal, then, is player engagement,
retention, and interaction by setting expectations correctly and modifying
player attitudes to accept and adapt to what Eve offers, not resist and condemn
it. And this is good for everyone.

And today I won. I
quote from CCP Fozzie’s summer null-sec sov announcement:

“Playing with and outplaying other human beings is the core
of Eve, and putting players in contact with each other is a big part of that.
If people can fight over an asset without ever coming into contact with each
other, we’ve lost something very valuable.” -CCP Fozzie

The major issues with the original plan, as identified by
players, were the following:

Time
zone control effectively locking ownership of systems into certain time
zones (ie. if you can’t log in during EU prime, you’ll never be able to
take an EU system) and disincentivizing alliances from spreading across
more than one time zone.

Alliances
regularly using their systems should have an even easier time when
defending them.

The
initial wave of proposed changes would make it difficult to maintain
control over your capital.
Typically, it attracts a lot of enemy attention and has hotdroppers
regularly, making ratting and mining extremely hazardous. With indexes, ironically your staging
system would be MORE vulnerable to conquest.

The
ability of players to use entosis links on ships that are uncatchable and
unkillable, particularly those that can bypass gatecamps. The community was
concerned that this could create a means of players to reinforce dozens of
systems they had no intention of contesting with minimal risk.

Time zone vulnerability that scales based on the combined
index of the systems… designated capital systems providing a bonus to indexes…
increase in maximum modified from 4x to 6x… each of these provides a good
solution to these issues. While Fozzie
repeatedly states that CCP would prefer to use the simplest solution to a
problem and I’m not sure these qualify in all cases, I can live with them.

Monday, May 4, 2015

Last night didn’t produce any killmails, but it did produce
two great stories through engagements with a group of Gentlemen’s Club
pilots. While the lessons I learned were
fairly mundane, the telling of them merits repeating.

The First: Svipul vs.
Phantasm

There are a few experiences in Eve that happen so
infrequently that they fall into the realm of Eve lore. People whisper and talk about them without
ever having experienced them themselves.
And that’s okay. The fact that
they don’t happen all the time makes them mysterious. Things like jumping your Titan instead of
bridging. Of successfully pipebombing
someone. Of pulling off that 100 billion
isk scam.

And I had the pleasure of experiencing one of them yesterday.

I started the night my usual way when I don’t log into a
find an active fleet, by scanning down all the signatures in Tamo and the
surrounding systems. Last night, we had
only one wormhole, a dangerous unknown, but that one had a couple of
connections in it, including one to Immensea.
Putting away my probing ship, I took out one of my two Svipuls and
decided to explore a little.

Now, I tend to fly ships fitted with probe launchers when
traveling through wormholes, just in case someone comes by and closes my
connection home. Svipuls are excellent at this.
The night before, I had a great deal of success playing the tackle role
with this very same ship, and had no problem taking on the targets I came
across.

And this included a Caracal last night running down rats at asteroid belts.
While I didn’t solo him, I was out-pacing his damage/tank state and
could have finished him off while still in armor if my fleet had been delayed.

Granted, the Svipul is a lot more expensive, but the Caracal
was still a cruiser, and I was able to take it down very nicely.

Friday, May 1, 2015

With the launch of all the new ship skins, CCP has shown
what appears to be a circling back around to the customization efforts they
began with Incarna. Now, a lot of folks
flipped their lid about Incarna for a variety of reasons, but the general
advantage of trying to make the assets we acquire in Eve a little more personal
was, in general, a good one.

Things are quite different between when Incarna launched and
now. Players have demonstrated, with
their wallets, that they’re willing to pay for customization, and CCP is
inching its way along. Now, while I like
the idea of ship skins, I have no personal interest in them. That could change. A long while back, I said I’d never buy the
glitzy avatar gear CCP offered when they launched aurum. My opinions have softened on that (as the
price fell, coincidentally).

I say “softened” because I really like the way Talvorian
looks, and given the way the character customizer works, if I change anything,
I don’t have the option of going back.
And that really holds me back.

Subscribe via RSS

Copyright Notice

EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. CCP hf. has granted permission to Target Caller to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, Target Caller. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.